"If the two Republican judges approach prevails,it would be open season for lawsuits" - Page 2

I've been listening to the first one. Just got done listening to the Justice Department's side and even though the lawyer answers all their questions and makes very nice arguments (though honestly I have no clue what cases he refers to), the two Republican judges are very adversarial. Judge Jennifer Elrod I believe keeps asking the lawyer whether he feels he's in the twilight zone which I guess means that Obama is so out there with his overreaching that this isn't reality anymore. Our lawyer says no, it's at the apex of executive discretion. Elrod again asks what he thinks of Obama's statement that "If congress doesn't act, I'll do it myself" and keeps throwing that back at the justice department lawyer.

Now the Texas lawyer comes and after he says he agrees with the court's original finding, the other Republican appointed judge jokes with him all "good ole boy" like and says "Now why did I think you were going to say that *chuckle*".

Unless there is some sort of law miracle where they absolutely can't deny it, this is going to be a 2-1 loss from what I hear so far.

Comments from Univision

http://atlanta.univision.com/videos/...ra-el-rumbo-de

I've listened to the entire recording - and the issue the two conservative judges have and crux of TX argument is DAPA, not the DACA extension. The DACA extension should be allowed to proceed for now, covering aged out DREAMERS and younger ones, because DACAx is simply an update/modification of the existing DACA program, not an entirely new program . as is DAPA. This is all awful; I cannot believe that no one at DHS or DOJ could have foreseen the issues that have put this in jeopardy.

yup
we are screwed

So do you think DACA could start and not DAPA? Because DACA is basically what the DACA of 2012 is with no age cap and 3 years work permit.

I actually think there is some chance of two judges changing their minds. First of all DOJ lawyer did very,very well in my opinion.He professionally addressed all the questions and concerns of the judges,clearly explained the difference between the lawful status and lawful presence,showed that monetary injury is not enough for the state to have a standing and argued that especially in case when constitutionality is involved states have very limited ability to sue federal government.
And here is how former AILA president David Leopold characterized Texas performance:
"I am listening to the oral argument in the Texas immigration case and stunned by the brazen misstatements of law by attorney for Texas".
It's quite clear that attorney for Texas didn't read the immigration law before he came to court"

^ If the 2012 DACA was put in effect in why not this expansion? Is it because DAPA is attached to it?

Yeah he was great and the Texas guy seemed arrogant and sounded like a politician rather than a lawyer. The problem is, these two Republican judges acted like they had made up their minds and nothing the lawyers would say would change that.

I am afraid of that too,but on the other hand Mr Mizer arguments seemed so convincing that not taking them for consideration would look very unprofessional and I think even Republican judges care about basic law principals and logic.

Well, we have a puncher's chance... If it doesn't work out this time around, we'd have a much better case at the supreme court.